ARWG vs. MFUS
ARWG (Archer Growth ETF) and MFUS (PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ARWG is actively managed, while MFUS is passively managed. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ARWG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for MFUS.
Performance
ARWG vs. MFUS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ARWG achieves a 8.13% return, which is significantly lower than MFUS's 18.31% return.
ARWG
- 1D
- 0.89%
- 1M
- 6.90%
- YTD
- 8.13%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MFUS
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- 3.47%
- YTD
- 18.31%
- 6M
- 17.50%
- 1Y
- 30.42%
- 3Y*
- 22.30%
- 5Y*
- 13.48%
- 10Y*
- —
ARWG vs. MFUS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 8.13% | -0.95% |
MFUS PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF | 18.31% | -0.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between ARWG and MFUS is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2025 | 0.68 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ARWG vs. MFUS — Risk / Return Rank
ARWG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
MFUS
ARWG vs. MFUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Archer Growth ETF (ARWG) and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF (MFUS). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ARWG | MFUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.49 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 4.79 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 19.46 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ARWG vs. MFUS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ARWG drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum MFUS drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ARWG and MFUS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ARWG | MFUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.79% | -35.21% | +22.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -6.39% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -15.39% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.03% | +0.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.36% | -3.98% | +0.62% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.57% | — |
Volatility
ARWG vs. MFUS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ARWG | MFUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.10% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 8.84% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.78% | 11.22% | +11.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.78% | 15.08% | +7.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.78% | 17.35% | +5.43% |
ARWG vs. MFUS - Expense Ratio Comparison
ARWG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MFUS's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
ARWG vs. MFUS - Dividend Comparison
ARWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than MFUS's 1.33% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MFUS PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor U.S. Equity ETF | 1.33% | 1.54% | 1.45% | 1.96% | 2.07% | 1.35% | 1.72% | 1.89% | 1.69% | 1.01% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ARWG and MFUS have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MFUS is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFUS is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ARWG.
MFUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.13% for ARWG.
They also come from different issuers: Archer Funds and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ARWG and 0.30% for MFUS.
Find the right allocation for ARWG and MFUS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer